Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Editor admits, displays ignorance on open carry issue

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    It is rare to read an editorial displaying such total ignorance, not only of general open carry and Second Amendment issues, but also of the specific details surrounding a story. Ms. Hain has not sought out publicity, but in fact has tried to avoid it, granting limited press interactions at the urging of her counsel and to further the open carry cause in general. We all owe her a debt of gratitude for her willingness to take the publicity on this matter, and for her efforts to hold those who abuse their power to account for those actions.

    This editor really needs some educating.

    TFred

    http://www.ldnews.com/opinion/ci_11336108

    Can’t find wrong that needs righted

    Editor:
    Lebanon Daily News

    I am forced to apologize to the reading public. With so many other concerns to write about, I tried to restrain myself from writing on the Meleanie Hain story but could do so no longer.

    With her lawsuit pending before the courts, I now am experiencing an outrage so great that only a dismissal of the case by the judge can quell it. I am appalled at people who create unusual or controversial situations and then try to profit from them. Hain’s case is typical of this process.

    What damages did she incur? If you are wrongly accused of a crime, you cannot recoup your attorney costs! Since she chose not to use her concealed-weapons permit at the soccer game, what trauma did she suffer? She appeared to revel in the publicity of the story. She claims that Sheriff Michael DeLeo has traumatized her in some way. If I understand correctly, she was not prohibited from owning her gun after her concealed-carry permit was temporarily revoked.

    Let me first clarify by saying that I do not like guns, have never owned one and have never shot one. However, I do respect the right of individuals to own them based on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. But I also recognize the limitations of this amendment. Restrictions on gun ownership and/or gun responsibilities are not designed to take weapons away from the general populous. To extrapolate the Second Amendment to the degree many gun lobbyists and some (not necessarily the majority) gun advocates do would lead to the ownership of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles by those who could afford them. To this end it must be noted that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to assure that the federal government could not raise a standing army more powerful than the state militias.

    I would appreciate an explanation from gun owners who have obtained a concealed-weapons permit as to why someone would go through the painstaking process of obtaining a concealed-weapons permit and then not utilize that permit (and common sense) when attending a youth soccer game. Why would someone do something such as this unless to draw attention to a political cause advocated by that individual and other associates?

    Now they wish to be rewarded in a court of law and profit from an action that traumatized many people at that soccer game. Maybe those who attended that soccer game should seek litigation against and compensation from the individual that caused the trauma imposed on both their children and themselves. Wouldn’t that be poetic justice?

    Karl Kohr

    Lebanon

  2. #2
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    My reply to the article which is posted on the forum.

    Open carry is a right. People need a LTCF(License to carry a firearm), not a conceal carry permit, to carry a firearm in a vehicle or a city of first class like Philadelphia.

    Yes, you have displayed ignorance in your writing, but to your own admit you don't know anything on firearms nor the laws surrounding them.

    I open carry all the time, I prefer it. I even open carry in to the bank, though everyone who works there knows me well enough. The grocery store managers tell anyone who complains about me to go "pound sand" and they're not kicking out a patron of the store. Vets also walk up to me and thank me for exercising a right they fought hard for in the war(s).

    Open carrying shows the People who are armed and we do care about our rights. For those who want to strip us of our rights, they call themselves gun control groups talking about the safety of the public calling out, "Think of the Children."

    Why open carry, to show people we care about our right. Self defense is also a right, which the same gun control groups will fight against.

    I urge you to watch the video when Mrs. Hain was on tv.
    http://www.lildobe.net/gallery2/v/PA...Doyle.flv.html

    If you watch the video, you might be a bit shocked what comes out from the gun control representative's mouth. He mentions people have the right to yell or scream for help, not defend themselves, in what story was told by a caller a potential rape situation.

    These are the people who want to take away our rights, this is why many open carry. This may not be way I open carry, but I support the argument for reasons of I want to keep my rights.

    I hope Mrs. Hain wins, as what happened was "official oppression", which is just a step away from a police state/a 1984 if we start allowing authority to take rights away if we allow such behavior.

    I'm done for now, you can join the open carry forum at http://www.opencarry.org

    Thank you for asking about the issue, even though your presumptions were incorrect.

    Sincerely,
    Insane Kangaroo
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    She wasn't traumatized by having her rights violated, but the other attendees at the game were, without any usurpation of their rights? And if the state militias are supposed to be superior to the standing federal army, then why is the Ohio National Guard using Vietnam-era leftovers?

    -ljp

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    On a brief perusal...

    I wonder what Kohr paid to be called 'editor' while being able to write and evidently publish "weapons away from the general populous[sic]."

    I tried to and may have sent:

    The collective conspiracy of ignorance only masquerades as common sense. Your premise, Kohr, is false.
    For now IK's comment is the only one showing. I suggest that it would be more effective over a human's name.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.

  5. #5
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Wow, makes me glad I live in Virginia.

    The bottom line is it doesn't matter whether or not these people feel threatened or intimidated by a lady OC'ing a gun. Frankly, it's none of their business. What appalls me the most are the comments of her fellow Pennsylvanians about her decision.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  6. #6
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Well, if they've a mental problem with guns, they can move to Australia or the UK.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    RTM Rockford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    316

    Post imported post

    Please note that this link is from a LETTER TO THE EDITOR. This is not the Lebanon Daily News editorial. This is an important detail.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    While you are correct, it is not clearly differentiated from an editorial opinion (and for that I apologize to Kohr for expecting him to have an editors standards), why is that "an important detail"?

  9. #9
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Hcidem wrote:
    Please note that this link is from a LETTER TO THE EDITOR. This is not the Lebanon Daily News editorial. This is an important detail.
    Wow, I think you are right. From the wording of the beginning of the letter, I thought it was the Opinion Editor of the newspaper. It is worded from a standpoint of "well, I've decided to write about this now, so you will now know what I have to say"... It rather assumes the letter will be printed.

    Apologies for the misleading Subject.

    TFred


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    RTM Rockford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    316

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    While you are correct, it is not clearly differentiated from an editorial opinion (and for that I apologize to Kohr for expecting him to have an editors standards), why is that "an important detail"?
    Perhaps you are right. These are the two links I found which make the difference:

    http://www.ldnews.com/editorial

    http://www.ldnews.com/letterseditor



    I hope you're not trying to bait me on this, Doug. This is an important detail because editors represent newspapers. For many newspapers their opinion is the official opinion of that newspaper.

    On the other hand, letters to the editor are merely submitted commentary - much the same as the comments you and I left in the comment section beneath Kohr's letter. They do not represent a newspaper's official opinion.

    They might be selectively chosen for print because they highlight a particular point-of-view the paper holds. However, many papers select opposing views to fostercontroversy or show how ill-worded their opposition can prove itself to be.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    RTM Rockford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    316

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    ... From the wording of the beginning of the letter, I thought it was the Opinion Editor of the newspaper. It is worded from a standpoint of "well, I've decided to write about this now, so you will now know what I have to say"... It rather assumes the letter will be printed.
    ...

    Not a problem. I also thought read it as though it was from the editor. I looked closer after reading the commentary on Kohr's quality of writing.

    I would use the word, presumptive, to describe this guy. He might just be one of thoselocal curmudgeons who spends his retirement collecting box tops and writing letters to the editor. He wrote as though readers were waiting for his two bits on the topic.

    By the way...thanks for bringing his letter to our attention.


  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    Let me first clarify by saying that I do not like guns, have never owned one and have never shot one.
    I never would have guessed that....



  13. #13
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    Wow, There are some folks over there that don't know what they are talking about. Sad.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Yorktown, VA, ,
    Posts
    270

    Post imported post

    Comment posted.

  15. #15
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    I loved it when Melanie said 11% of the time LEOs shoot an innocent bystander and 2% of the time citizens with guns shoot innocent bystanders and nobody disputed it. Not even the 32 year veteran LEO.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  16. #16
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    I loved it when Melanie said 11% of the time LEOs shoot an innocent bystander and 2% of the time citizens with guns shoot innocent bystanders and nobody disputed it. Not even the 32 year veteran LEO.
    Yep, I saw that, too. Also something she could have pointed out is the fact that private citizens have a higher percentage of successful hits on BG's than do police. And the reason is because police officers are easy to spot. They wear uniforms and the BG's pretty much know who and where they are and the fact that they're armed. They don't know this about citizens so when a citizen pulls a gun and fires, chances are he is not only closer to the BG, but catches the BG off guard and is able to land hits better.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    rodbender wrote:
    I loved it when Melanie said 11% of the time LEOs shoot an innocent bystander and 2% of the time citizens with guns shoot innocent bystanders and nobody disputed it. Not even the 32 year veteran LEO.
    Yep, I saw that, too. Also something she could have pointed out is the fact that private citizens have a higher percentage of successful hits on BG's than do police. And the reason is because police officers are easy to spot. They wear uniforms and the BG's pretty much know who and where they are and the fact that they're armed. They don't know this about citizens so when a citizen pulls a gun and fires, chances are he is not only closer to the BG, but catches the BG off guard and is able to land hits better.
    Some even practice/shoot more frequently.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  18. #18
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Email address of person who wrote article:

    Karlton K. Kohr
    agreyhound2go@yahoo.com



    I wrote the person, and received what was a very rude reply back in regards to the quality of my writing while using my common name.

    Since his reply was so rude to my well written and nice email, maybe he should listen to what others have to say.


    Dear Insane Kangaroo:

    Thank you for the response to my letter. You sound like a paid political announcement. Politics have nothing to do with my writing. It is common sense that is lacking---that is the point.
    There is no need for a gun at a soccer game for six year olds. If another person showed up with a gun and started shooting, I assume that you would advocate that Ms Hain return fire and put even more citizens at risk.
    Your message smacks of the NRA. As I had said, I do not advocate the move of Sheriff DeLeo and I respect the rights of citizens to arm themselves. They should have some consideration and respect for their fellow citizens though.
    However your response, as I said, appears to be nothing short of a paid political announcement. If this truly is how YOU believe than you should have used your real name. You have not shown me the courtesy of using your real name and any name that you use hence will be questionable.
    Respectfully,
    Karl


    --- On Thu, 1/1/09, Insane Kangaroo <insane.kangaroo@furryzone.com> wrote:

    > > From: Insane Kangaroo <insane.kangaroo@furryzone.com>
    > > Subject: re: can't find wrong that needs righted
    > > To: agreyhound2go@yahoo.com
    > > Date: Thursday, January 1, 2009, 5:13 AM
    > > Open carry is a right. People need a LTCF(License to carry a
    > > firearm),
    > > not a conceal carry permit, to carry a firearm in a vehicle
    > > or a city of
    > > first class like Philadelphia.
    > >
    > > Yes, you have displayed ignorance in your writing, but to
    > > your own admit
    > > you don't know anything on firearms nor the laws
    > > surrounding them.
    > >
    > > I open carry all the time, I prefer it. I even open carry
    > > in to the
    > > bank, though everyone who works there knows me well enough.
    > > The grocery
    > > store managers tell anyone who complains about me to go
    > > "pound sand" and
    > > they're not kicking out a patron of the store. Vets
    > > also walk up to me
    > > and thank me for exercising a right they fought hard for in
    > > the war(s).
    > >
    > > Open carrying shows the People who are armed and we do care
    > > about our
    > > rights. For those who want to strip us of our rights, they
    > > call
    > > themselves gun control groups talking about the safety of
    > > the public
    > > calling out, "Think of the Children."
    > >
    > > Why open carry, to show people we care about our right.
    > > Self defense is
    > > also a right, which the same gun control groups will fight
    > > against.
    > >
    > > I urge you to watch the video when Mrs. Hain was on tv.
    > > http://www.lildobe.net/gallery2/v/PA...Doyle.flv.html
    > >
    > > If you watch the video, you might be a bit shocked what
    > > comes out from
    > > the gun control representative's mouth. He mentions
    > > people have the
    > > right to yell or scream for help, not defend themselves, in
    > > what story
    > > was told by a caller a potential rape situation.
    > >
    > > These are the people who want to take away our rights, this
    > > is why many
    > > open carry. This may not be way I open carry, but I support
    > > the argument
    > > for reasons of I want to keep my rights.
    > >
    > > I hope Mrs. Hain wins, as what happened was "official
    > > oppression", which
    > > is just a step away from a police state/a 1984 if we start
    > > allowing
    > > authority to take rights away if we allow such behavior.
    > >
    > > I'm done for now, you can join the open carry forum at
    > > http://www.opencarry.org
    > >
    > > Thank you for asking about the issue, even though your
    > > presumptions were
    > > incorrect.
    > >
    > > Sincerely,
    > > Insane Kangaroo


    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  19. #19
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    There is no need for a gun at a soccer game for six year olds. If another person showed up with a gun and started shooting, I assume that you would advocate that Ms Hain return fire and put even more citizens at risk.
    Wow,

    This guy must be either crazy, or he has absolutely no one in his life that he cares about.

    Apparently he would prefer that the victims at the scene of an active shooter just hang around waiting to be murdered. His credibility as a normal human being has been completely lost.

    TFred


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    RTM Rockford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    316

    Post imported post

    If we were to take Mr. Kohr's reply to insane.kangarooat face value, we would be lead to believe his only issue with Ms. Hain was her carrying a gun to her child's soccer game. Yet, his original letter to the editor was essentially aimed at denouncing her civil lawsuit - his jab at her 2A rights were merely incidental to his argument.

    He now shows a marked disdain for gun owners while trying to claim some level of respect for citizen's rights to arm themselves. He seems to equate "common sense" with "lowest common denominator." He has no true respect for civil rights. How can he when he is so blatantly ignorant of them?

  21. #21
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    "...This cannot be done in one hour or one day. As you reach out to people in this way, you need to deal with both the illogical thought processes involved and the emotional reactions that anti-gun people have to firearms."

    http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragi...elfdefense.htm

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    This is a copy of an e-mail that I sent to Mr. Kohr. I apologize in advance for the length, it is just that he was wrong on so may accounts that I didn't know where to begin or stop.

    Mr. Kohr,

    In response to your letter in the Lebanon Daily News I feel that I must answer some of your questions and correct you on a few things that you state.



    What damages did she incur?

    She suffered a loss of income and public embarrassment as well as an infringement on her rights, all while violating NO laws or threatening anyone.


    If you are wrongly accused of a crime, you cannot recoup your attorney costs!

    You can sue for damages when your rights have been violated by a Law Enforcement Officer, ever hear of Rodney King?


    She claims that Sheriff Michael DeLeo has traumatized her in some way. If I understand correctly, she was not prohibited from owning her gun after her concealed-carry permit was temporarily revoked.

    No, but she was then forced to carry in the same way that started all of this because the revocation of her CCW permit made it illegal to carry concealed. The alternative was for her to remain unarmed, leaving her vulnerable to attack. This may not seem important to you, but some people take personal responsibility for their own safety very seriously.


    Let me first clarify by saying that I do not like guns, have never owned one and have never shot one.

    This hardly instills confidence that yours is an objective opinion.


    However, I do respect the right of individuals to own them based on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    Reading your letter, I would be led to believe otherwise.


    But I also recognize the limitations of this amendment.

    What limitations are you referring to? Would you also recognize the same limitations being placed on your other Constitutional Rights? For example, would you support a licensing requirement for being published in a newspaper?


    Restrictions on gun ownership and/or gun responsibilities are not designed to take weapons away from the general populous.

    Really, ever hear of the D.C. gun ban that was recently determined to be unconstitutional, or the Chicago gun bans, or the California AWB? How about the Gun Control Act of 1968? All of these have resulted in the loss of weapons by members of the general populace.


    To extrapolate the Second Amendment to the degree many gun lobbyists and some (not necessarily the majority) gun advocates do would lead to the ownership of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles by those who could afford them. To this end it must be noted that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to assure that the federal government could not raise a standing army more powerful than the state militias.

    The fact is that this is simply not true. If you read the writings of the founding fathers it becomes very clear that they were defining an individual right. Why would “The People” in the Second Amendment be different from “The People” in amendments 1, 4, 9, and 10? Are you saying that these amendments only apply to state sponsored groups? Even if your statement about the state militias was true, name one state militia that could defend against the active duty U.S. armed forces. Are you saying that the entire active duty military of the U.S. is unconstitutional?


    I would appreciate an explanation from gun owners who have obtained a concealed-weapons permit as to why someone would go through the painstaking process of obtaining a concealed-weapons permit and then not utilize that permit (and common sense) when attending a youth soccer game.

    It is a matter of free choice. Why would someone who has gone through the process of getting a drivers license, walk to the grocery store instead of driving their car? Common sense would dictate that driving would be faster and more comfortable. Maybe they just prefer to do it this way over that. Who are we to judge their decision? As long as they endanger no one and break no laws, let them be. As for the advantage of open carry over concealed carry, often it is difficult or uncomfortable to conceal certain firearms, this is usually not a problem when open carrying. Also, open carry eliminates the hazards of clothing getting tangled in your firearm at inopportune moments. This is part of the reason why uniformed police officers open carry.



    How is a youth soccer game different from a shopping mall, grocery store, or the street in front of a house? All have children present on a regular basis.


    Why would someone do something such as this unless to draw attention to a political cause advocated by that individual and other associates?

    Personal protection and the protection of others from attack.


    Now they wish to be rewarded in a court of law and profit from an action that traumatized many people at that soccer game. Maybe those who attended that soccer game should seek litigation against and compensation from the individual that caused the trauma imposed on both their children and themselves.

    No, they wish to make sure that the infringement of rights is not allowed to continue. As for the trauma suffered by people at the soccer game, this is a personal problem of the people traumatized, not the fault of Melanie Hain. Maybe they should seek counseling to address their fear of inanimate objects in the possession of law-abiding people. I have suffered trauma from the actions of other people, the way they dressed, the way they spoke, the cars that they drove, ect., as long as they were within the law, this is my problem, not theirs.


    In an e-mail that I found posted on an internet forum you replied to Insane Kangaroo:


    Thank you for the response to my letter. You sound like a paid political announcement. Politics have nothing to do with my writing. It is common sense that is lacking---that is the point.

    I would have to agree that your writing lacks common sense.


    There is no need for a gun at a soccer game for six year olds.

    Unless you can see the future, there is no way that you can say this with any authority. If you can indeed see the future, then you can send the police to stop the danger before it happens, in which case she would not be a danger either. Otherwise, are you willing to accept full responsibility for the safety of every person in attendance? According to the Supreme Court, not even the police are required to come to your aid if they feel it is too dangerous to do so. Are you willing to make that commitment?


    If another person showed up with a gun and started shooting, I assume that you would advocate that Ms Hain return fire

    Yes, meeting force with equal force is the most efficient way to stop an active shooter.


    and put even more citizens at risk.

    Or, meet the attacker with equal force, thereby stopping the attack. Would you prefer that the victims just wait defenseless for their turn to die? Can you say that her return fire would be more dangerous than the attacker’s fire?

    If the presence of return fire puts innocent bystanders in danger, and studies show that 11% of the time, police hit innocent bystanders, while only 2% of the time are innocent bystanders hit by shots fired by an armed citizen, are you saying that calling the police would put innocent bystanders at risk?


    Your message smacks of the NRA.

    The truth is true, no matter where it comes from.


    As I had said, I do not advocate the move of Sheriff DeLeo and I respect the rights of citizens to arm themselves.

    Then why should a law-abiding citizen be forced to sit back and take the violation of their rights?


    They should have some consideration and respect for their fellow citizens though.

    Why shouldn’t fellow citizens have some consideration for Melanie? She broke NO laws, she threatened no one, and she was within her rights. Are you saying that we should legislate consideration for other people’s irrational feelings?



    Your personal feelings show throughout your writings. You don’t seem to be interested in truth, only your own irrational fear of weapons, which can do nothing by themselves, and the people who choose to take personal responsibility for their own safety. If I am frightened by the way that someone dresses, the way that they cut their hair, the way that they walk down the street, the presence of tattoos, or the music that they listen to (all of which can be said to be the sign of a gang banger), should we make laws banning these things to avoid my being “traumatized”? No, of course not. As long as they are not a threat to me or anyone else, they should be allowed to express themselves however they see fit.



    (Name deleted from original letter for privacy reasons.)


  23. #23
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    Nicely done. I hope you receive a reply.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    This is the response to my letter to Mr. Kohr and my response to him. Once againI apologize if it's a little long.

    My Kohr's letter:



    Dear Ms (Mrs)XXX:

    I, unlike you, define my position as casual observer. If you have ever read my writings to the editor, they are never written with any political siding---either left or right. They are always constructive in nature. This is where you, and the supporters of Meleanie Hain, differ from me. You have a direct agenda to advocate---I do not (in spite of the opinion you have already formed of me). This allows me to be objective and conversely prohibits you from doing the same.
    Many, if not all, of my friends hunt and own a multitude of guns. I do not have a problem with this and at no time has this ever created any tension in our relationship. I am also a vegetarian and have no problem with those who eat meat. Unlike our subject, I respect the comfort and the uniqueness of other people, and try not to force my idea(ls) on them.
    As for most of your responses, anytime you would like to debate the facts in a public forum I would be glad to accomodate. I believe this is a way for all to learn and understand another point of view. But first review what the reasoning the Founding Fathers utilized in the development of the 2nd amendment. It was not simply for a right of individuals.
    Respectfully,
    Karl




    My response:


    Mr. Kohr,

    In response to your letter I have a few things for your consideration.


    Dear Ms (Mrs)XXX:

    If you had read the name at the bottom of the page instead of just who the e-mail account is listed under you would see that it was signed XXXXXX XXX, not XXXXXXXX.


    I, unlike you, define my position as casual observer.

    Your definition and mine are somewhat different. If you take a stand on an issue, which involves personal attacks, you can hardly be defined as a “casual observer”. You are correct in your assessment that I am not a casual observer. This is because I have principles in which I believe very strongly, and I am not afraid to declare what I believe in and choose sides. You need to be honest with yourself. A casual observer reports what is there to see, the facts if you will, not personal beliefs.


    If you have ever read my writings to the editor, they are never written with any political siding---either left or right.

    I admit that have not read any of your other letters as I am located in Nevada and have never heard of you or the newspaper in which your letter was printed before now. I don’t see what this has to do with anything. The subject of my letter was your letter on open carry and Melanie Hain. I don’t recall mentioning any political affiliation in my letter to you so I fail to see what that has anything to do with anything, unless you are equating my stand on the right to self defense to political siding. If this is the case then you cannot say that you write with no political siding, because you too have taken a stand on this issue.


    They are always constructive in nature.

    I find that people seldom have a clear and objective assessment of their own comments in regards to being constructive or not. I found some of your comments down right insulting. You attacked on a personal level people who you do not claim to know personally. You expressed opinions, with no verifiable facts, which would show where Melanie was wrong in her actions. How can you call this constructive?


    This is where you, and the supporters of Meleanie Hain, differ from me. You have a direct agenda to advocate---I do not (in spite of the opinion you have already formed of me).

    I am forced to apologize to the reading public. With so many other concerns to write about, I tried to restrain myself from writing on the Meleanie Hain story but could do so no longer.



    I am appalled at people who create unusual or controversial situations and then try to profit from them. Hain’s case is typical of this process.



    She appeared to revel in the publicity of the story.



    I would appreciate an explanation from gun owners who have obtained a concealed-weapons permit as to why someone would go through the painstaking process of obtaining a concealed-weapons permit and then not utilize that permit (and common sense) when attending a youth soccer game.



    Why would someone do something such as this unless to draw attention to a political cause advocated by that individual and other associates?



    Now they wish to be rewarded in a court of law and profit from an action that traumatized many people at that soccer game.



    Maybe those who attended that soccer game should seek litigation against and compensation from the individual that caused the trauma imposed on both their children and themselves.


    These statements clearly show that you have an agenda to color Melanie and other self-defense advocates as having something “wrong” with them for wanting to carry a gun for self-defense. As I pointed out Melanie violated NO laws, and was well within her Constitutional rights, she threatened no one, and posed no danger to those around her. For what would you have her punished?


    This allows me to be objective and conversely prohibits you from doing the same.

    I would disagree with your assessment. You advocate the punishment of a person that violated NO laws, and was well within her Constitutional rights, she threatened no one, and posed no danger to those around her. How is this being objective?

    What would you say if I advocated the same treatment for someone who exorcized their 1st Amendment rights in a way that broke no laws, was well within their Constitutional rights, threatened no one, and posed no danger to those around them, yet for my own personal reasons, I found upsetting? Do you see the danger in this line of reasoning?



    Unlike our subject, I respect the comfort and the uniqueness of other people, and try not to force my idea(ls) on them.

    I disagree. You would have others, like Melanie (who violated NO laws) be forced to change their habits, just to make you “feel better”. If you want to take away my Constitutional rights, then you are trying to force your ideals on me and others like me.


    As for most of your responses, anytime you would like to debate the facts in a public forum I would be glad to accomodate. I believe this is a way for all to learn and understand another point of view.

    Gladly, you can post your replies to my challenges on OpenCarry.org where I found the copy of your letter to the editor, and a copy of my letter to you is posted as well as any further correspondence on this issue will be. I will even do what I can to keep the posters there from getting personal with the name-calling and such. If you want to defend your position in a public forum, here is your chance, or we can do it in a forum of your choosing.


    But first review what the reasoning the Founding Fathers utilized in the development of the 2nd amendment. It was not simply for a right of individuals.

    Since the recent ruling from the Supreme Court says otherwise, I would say that it is you who needs to review the reasoning that the Founders used when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

    If you are going to advocate action, which affects a person’s Constitutional rights, you need to have more than just personal feelings as a justification. Feel free to present any factual backing for your statements that go beyond personal feelings.

    XXXXXX


    Once again, I hid my name and that of my wife, for reasons of personal privacy, hers, not mine. I hope that this is understood by all.


  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    RTM Rockford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    316

    Post imported post

    Gordie wrote:
    ...
    Gladly, you can post your replies to my challenges on OpenCarry.org where I found the copy of your letter to the editor, and a copy of my letter to you is posted as well as any further correspondence on this issue will be.
    ...
    Good gravy! You didn't actually invite an anti onto the forum, did you? This is the last thing we need, another flamer.

    I wish you had not done this. I'm sure you could have found another venue in which you could have called him out. I sure hope he doesn't accept your offer.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •